Wftc increase from 16 hours to 24 hours

[southcoast 10]

you could never get it for less than 16 hours over 25 any ways.... if over 25, you have to work full time, and be earning less than 16k/pa to get any WTC

 

 

Its 30 hrs if your single,and one more thing they have abolished the over 50 element to WTC,so the more mature have lost out.

[Zamo 10]

Now I have to try and find another 4 hours or lose my working tax credit. Thought the government wanted people to work. They sure don't make it easy for us.

 

But 24 hours per week isn't a lot to ask a couple to contribute toward their own keep. If you don't work those hours it means someone else is effectively doing them for you along with all the other hours required to pay for the wftc.

 

I work 60 hours a week and have to spend 4 nights a week away from my kids. As a result I make a net positive financial contribution to the state coffers. I don't mind paying my fair share but is it fair that I work 60 hours a week (and endure 4 nights a week away from home) to keep yours down to 20? This is the reality... Reduce my contribution or reduce subsistence to others. The government has opted for a bit of both and that seems reasonable.

[Cyclone 10]

Would it not be possible for you three girls to go self employed?

 

Suppose you all work as childcarers for 25 hours per week, for each others kids, claiming the childcare element on behalf of each other, in order to qualify for the WFTCs.

 

I've always wondered about whether this would be possible.

 

Sounds like it should be possible, presumably they'd have to get the correct qualification, set up a ltd company and register as child minders... But once the hoops are jumped through...

It wouldn't work out as 25hrs/week for all 3 amongst a group of 3 though would it. If each of the 3 is also working 24 hrs (3 days) in a regular job, and they need to ensure that at least one of them is not working on any given day.

The maximum hours they can have is 16 each, and it results in 1 day a week when 2 of them are babysitting 1 child (this is okay, it's a ltd company after-all, it's up to the company how many staff are working).

 

Maybe I've misunderstood though, because now they're all working full time.

 

Maybe you meant not to have 24 hrs doing some other work... In which case, it's perfectly okay for them to work 3 days a week each, that covers the week. The only flaw in this I can see is that they are also child minding their own child...

[Zamo 10]

Sounds like it should be possible, presumably they'd have to get the correct qualification, set up a ltd company and register as child minders... But once the hoops are jumped through...

It wouldn't work out as 25hrs/week for all 3 amongst a group of 3 though would it. If each of the 3 is also working 24 hrs (3 days) in a regular job, and they need to ensure that at least one of them is not working on any given day.

The maximum hours they can have is 16 each, and it results in 1 day a week when 2 of them are babysitting 1 child (this is okay, it's a ltd company after-all, it's up to the company how many staff are working).

 

Maybe I've misunderstood though, because now they're all working full time.

 

Maybe you meant not to have 24 hrs doing some other work... In which case, it's perfectly okay for them to work 3 days a week each, that covers the week. The only flaw in this I can see is that they are also child minding their own child...

 

A limited company will need to register for PAYE, pay minimum wage, invoice customers, make annual returns to companies house and HMRC, create P&L statements, balance sheets, open a business bank account and pay associated fees etc, etc. It will not be a lot easier to set up as a partnership either. I would also suggest that creating phantom business to take advantage of a benefit scheme is more than likely to breach some law and could result in criminal prosecution.

 

I'd suggest it would be easier and less risky to just work an extra 4 hours a week or to start a real business!

[missflirtuk 10]

But 24 hours per week isn't a lot to ask a couple to contribute toward their own keep. If you don't work those hours it means someone else is effectively doing them for you along with all the other hours required to pay for the wftc.

 

I work 60 hours a week and have to spend 4 nights a week away from my kids. As a result I make a net positive financial contribution to the state coffers. I don't mind paying my fair share but is it fair that I work 60 hours a week (and endure 4 nights a week away from home) to keep yours down to 20? This is the reality... Reduce my contribution or reduce subsistence to others. The government has opted for a bit of both and that seems reasonable.

Excuse me, did I say I wouldn't do them? Don't have a go at me, at least I'm working to pay my way. Not like some people who have never worked a day in their lives.

[Cyclone 10]

A limited company will need to register for PAYE, pay minimum wage, invoice customers, make annual returns to companies house and HMRC, create P&L statements, balance sheets, open a business bank account and pay associated fees etc, etc. It will not be a lot easier to set up as a partnership either. I would also suggest that creating phantom business to take advantage of a benefit scheme is more than likely to breach some law and could result in criminal prosecution.

 

I'd suggest it would be easier and less risky to just work an extra 4 hours a week or to start a real business!

 

Directors don't have to be paid minimum wage, invoicing is trivial (particularly if you're only invoicing other directors), PAYE is pretty straight forward, and an accountant can do the annual accounts and submission for a moderate fee. A business account can be found for free, so long as you don't have too many transactions.

 

It seems unlikely that running a child care business could be breaking the law. Lots of businesses are started up with the intention of providing a service that is paid for by the government, nothing wrong with that.

Why do you suggest that it's not a real job, the government are going to pay someone to do the childcare so that these parents can work, why couldn't they work by providing child care?

[marshlad 10]

I couldn't care less about tax credits because I don't claim them. I have too much pride to claim from the state. The increase in the tax threshold will make me better off. If people work part time they should accept a part time wage if they want a full time wage they should work full time. It is not fair to expect full time workers to subsidise part timers wages.

[Mister M 1,625]

I couldn't care less about tax credits because I don't claim them. I have too much pride to claim from the state. The increase in the tax threshold will make me better off. If people work part time they should accept a part time wage if they want a full time wage they should work full time. It is not fair to expect full time workers to subsidise part timers wages.

 

I don't claim tax credits because I earn something like £20 over the threshold, but I'm saddened to hear that the recent changes in the rules will make people worse off or have to give up work entirely.

Those who claim wftc are often single parents trying to earn an income and by doing so also provide a positive role model to ther children, they should be proud - that you refuse to claim from the state is because you're to proud is your problem, not theirs.

Unfortunately there are some large employers (who could well afford to pay a living wage) rely on the fact that tax credits exist so that they can continue to pay the least possible. It isn't about full time workers having to subsidise part timers wages.

How does it advantage you to see others struggle?

[Mecky 10]

From next year people earning £35,000 or more will be in the highest tax bracket. They tried to sneak that through too.

[marshlad 10]

I don't claim tax credits because I earn something like £20 over the threshold, but I'm saddened to hear that the recent changes in the rules will make people worse off or have to give up work entirely.

Those who claim wftc are often single parents trying to earn an income and by doing so also provide a positive role model to ther children, they should be proud - that you refuse to claim from the state is because you're to proud is your problem, not theirs.

Unfortunately there are some large employers (who could well afford to pay a living wage) rely on the fact that tax credits exist so that they can continue to pay the least possible. It isn't about full time workers having to subsidise part timers wages.

How does it advantage you to see others struggle?

 

If people are struggling on their wages they should look at extra training or study to better their chances of promotion or a better paid job instead of relying on tax credits.

[truman 10]

Those who claim wftc are often single parents trying to earn an income and by doing so also provide a positive role model to ther children, ?

 

Aren't single parents exempt from this change?

[Loubbe 10]

If people are struggling on their wages they should look at extra training or study to better their chances of promotion or a better paid job instead of relying on tax credits.

 

But that's not an easy option, particularly if you have to try and fund it yourself! Lets not forget HE funding has been cut, hence the rise in tuition fees.